CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[320 Years of History]

I've been COMPLETELY clear about the difference between Arab culture/politics and practicing the Muslim religion.

That, unlike the list, is indeed something I missed. Please do show me where you've been clear about "the difference between Arab culture/politics and practicing the Muslim religion."

I see NO DIFFERENCE between the socio-political-religious fabric of a CLASSICAL Arab country and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Pedigrees are not exciting me here. They ALL contain the same distasteful elements of Arab culture that I clearly laid out.

That you see no difference is precisely the problem with your line of reasoning.

The two emboldened statements above together form a clear indication that Arabism and Muslimism aren't the same things, yet you conflate them. Indeed, you even included Indonesia in your castigation of Arab cultures when that is a society that isn't remotely Arabic.

Have you ever been to Indonesia, India, or Nigeria? You should go. If you do visit any one of the three, you'll have to look very hard to find anything Arab about it, so hard, in fact, that you may not even find it. Indonesian culture is decidedly Eastern Asian and not Arab, and Indonesia has the greatest number of Muslims of all countries on the planet. There's no way at all to view Indian culture as being Arab; I don't know of anyone who thinks of India as an Arab place, socially, culturally, politically, or in any other way.

Look at the chart below. About 46% of the world's Muslims live in places that are decidedly non-Arab.

I've worked in India and Indonesia, but I've never been to Pakistan. I'm aware that there's a meaningful segment of Pakistani society that wish they were Arab and would like nothing more than for others to perceve them as such. Nonetheless, you'll need to provide some sort of credible evidence that Pakistan is indeed Arabic and that its culture is effectively Arab in nature rather than, well, Persian/Pakistani in nature. I can find plenty that says it is not at all Arab or Arabic.

• My name is Pakistan and I’m not an Arab - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
  
• We're Pakistanis first, Muslims second - and Arabs, never
  
• Pakistan and the Arab-Muslim Culture of Denial (This discussion also addresses the point of the second sentence in the paragraph just above.)
  
• How India's strategic partnership with UAE will hit Pakistan where it hurts - Firstpost
  
  "Pakistan’s Parliament chose not to intervene militarily in the Yemen crisis and rejected Riyadh’s invitation to join the Saudi Arabia-led 10-nation military alliance. The decision, although well received in the Pakistani media, evoked a caustic response from the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash, who accused Islamabad of taking an 'ambiguous stand'."
  
  “ 'The vague and contradictory stand of Pakistan… (is) an absolute proof that Arab security — from Libya to Yemen — is the responsibility of none but Arab countries', stated Dr Gargash, adding that Pakistan would have to pay a “heavy price” for taking this position."

You've discounted what you call "pedigree," but you do so errantly. That pedigree is among the most important traits that Arabs cite as distinguishing themselves from other Muslims.

As far as the geography lesson -- I'll give you the Maldives

??? What does that mean?

 

[Coyote]

The link below is a BBC special on UK Sharia Councils. I want you folks denying that there is any concern about repeating these mistakes in America when LARGE immigration flows inevitably install the same accomodations here.

Listen carefully to the "advice" these BRITISH women are getting from the councils. NEVER does the Imam point out to the 1st couple that there IS NO civil marriage. Or that the woman has ANY RIGHTS guaranteed under BRITISH law.

Or the later case when the women with the Civil marriage is AGAIN not advised of her rights under Civil law.

Or the other case where the Leyton Sharia Counsel attempts to OVERRIDE the child custody ruling determined in a BRITISH court.

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.

I don't want to repeat myself, and I think I went over this in the Regressive thread.

I agree with what you are saying about the problems in British system and I've said this before.

The quality of the advice women get is all over the board. There is no "credentialling" system. In essence any one can be a self proclaimed authority. It IS a problem.

So, here's the question, why is only ONE religion under scrutiny when clearly all seem to have problems with this (I gave examples in an earlier post). If folks really are concerned about women's rights here, should not the the religious arbritration system be examined as a whole?

Secondly, HOW are you going to reconcile this with religious Freedom? Are you going to have the state come down and mandate what they must do WITHIN their faith? Or, only with Islam? Religious counciling overall seems pretty variable in quality but as long as the law isn't violated, how far SHOULD the state intervene?

Third, WE are not Britain, and assuming the same problems will occur is dubious given the differences in our communities.

I'm all for religious freedom and equal protection under the law. But it has to be American law. Not "foreign" law. The very fact that Sharia is codified INTO law in their native lands disturbs me.

To some extent, Halakah is codified into Israeli law too

There are countries that do not have secular law. That's a given - whether it's Sharia or something else. That does not affect us here. Whomever comes here MUST abide by our laws. Anytime there is religious or any other abritration - it can't go against the law.

In the US - we don't have any formally organized "sharia councils", in Britain, they do and they seem to primarily serve the huge Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant communities there.

What we have here is more of a loosey-goosie arrangement of individual Imams giving advice (much like most of the non-Catholic Christians seem to have.

ONE religion is under scrutiny because we are currently accelerating the immigration of folks who come from a culture of intolerance, religious domination of govt authority, and reliance on that authority to replace secular law. Recent Pew poll shows that recent Muslim immigrants to America believe by 60% that OUR government should play a much wider role in legislating morality., (even tho --- funny enough -- they tend to vote for the Party that MOCKS folks who want the government to legislate morality) This is the type of expectation that I see being a huge potential problem with allowing "parallel justice systems" to take hold.

One religion is under scrutiny because it's Islam. Did you see the snippet I posted about Christian religious counseling and the prevalence of abuse? I'm quite certain that in terms of sheer numbers of abused and badly counseled women, it exceeds Muslim women and these Christian women are getting very bad advice as well.

So 60% vs 30% of Christians believe government should "protect" morality - and that's recent immigrants. Do you want to bet that number changes by 2nd and 3rd generation to reflect the rest of Americans? I'm not sure this is such a big deal.

There ARE NO parallel JUSTICE systems - not among any of the religious arbritration groups. That's the kind of claim pushed by fear mongerers. There is only one JUSTICE system. What's happening in arbritration and religious counseling is not justice, it's civil matters - mostly divorce and then, ONLY religious divorce. It's very very limited. You can justifiably argue that it is inconsistent, unregulated and open to abuse but that argument applies pretty darn well to all the religious arbritration systems in play.

These folks are NOT just another wave of Irish potato farmers. They have never experience tolerate permissive societies that treat all religions equally. To turn a blind eye WILL repeat the mistakes that our Euro buds have made. So we need to explicitly state the extent to which ALL religions can offer parallel judgement to the public legal code.

That's it. It's not evil. It's not even painful. But any accommodation or ignoring of the problem might be painful..

Ya they are another wave of Irish potato farmers and the fears are exactly the same - my god, what they used to say about the Irish "papists" and the criminal gangs, and the drunken debauchery of the Irish.
Religious freedom and tolerance did not exist in Ireland, nor Russia, nor a number of countries we have immigrants from. We have been successfully absorbing people from "intolerant societies" for some time, INCLUDING Muslims.

Once you start applying different standards to different religions you are truly engaging in a slippery slope in regards to religious freedom. What is going to be the next "alien religion" or "alien culture" that is radically oppposed to ours? We went through that with the Irish, the Italians, the East European Jews, the Russians, Mexicans, Chinese....

What I have bolded - I agree, I have no problem when it applies to all religions - as long as the state doesn't cross the boundaries of religious freedom (which in this case I don't feel it does). That is the way it should be handled.

 

[Coyote]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you assume that?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't hate Islam. I believe it can be peaceably be practiced in Western tolerant permissive secular cultures. I hate Arab and other tribal cultures that seem to only reach stability in despotic theocratic cultures with little or no tolerance and freedom.

That will fix our little nit picky geographical and definition problems.

I guess that's a start, but the thing that has driven my conversation with you is that you've conflated Arabism and Muslimism. I'm tolerant of your hating either one or both. It's the lack of distinction between the two that I find bothersome.

Don't get me wrong, I do find hatred detestable as well, but I neither the time nor interest in attempting to address/mitigate that emotion when it is manifest in folks who are strangers to me. In contrast, it's quite easy to demonstrate that Arabism and Muslimism aren't the same things, aren't inextricably connected, aren't culturally dependent on one another, etc., and by doing so help to remove another's misunderstanding that conflates the two.

 

[flacaltenn]

The link below is a BBC special on UK Sharia Councils. I want you folks denying that there is any concern about repeating these mistakes in America when LARGE immigration flows inevitably install the same accomodations here.

Listen carefully to the "advice" these BRITISH women are getting from the councils. NEVER does the Imam point out to the 1st couple that there IS NO civil marriage. Or that the woman has ANY RIGHTS guaranteed under BRITISH law.

Or the later case when the women with the Civil marriage is AGAIN not advised of her rights under Civil law.

Or the other case where the Leyton Sharia Counsel attempts to OVERRIDE the child custody ruling determined in a BRITISH court.

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.

I don't want to repeat myself, and I think I went over this in the Regressive thread.

I agree with what you are saying about the problems in British system and I've said this before.

The quality of the advice women get is all over the board. There is no "credentialling" system. In essence any one can be a self proclaimed authority. It IS a problem.

So, here's the question, why is only ONE religion under scrutiny when clearly all seem to have problems with this (I gave examples in an earlier post). If folks really are concerned about women's rights here, should not the the religious arbritration system be examined as a whole?

Secondly, HOW are you going to reconcile this with religious Freedom? Are you going to have the state come down and mandate what they must do WITHIN their faith? Or, only with Islam? Religious counciling overall seems pretty variable in quality but as long as the law isn't violated, how far SHOULD the state intervene?

Third, WE are not Britain, and assuming the same problems will occur is dubious given the differences in our communities.

I'm all for religious freedom and equal protection under the law. But it has to be American law. Not "foreign" law. The very fact that Sharia is codified INTO law in their native lands disturbs me.

To some extent, Halakah is codified into Israeli law too

There are countries that do not have secular law. That's a given - whether it's Sharia or something else. That does not affect us here. Whomever comes here MUST abide by our laws. Anytime there is religious or any other abritration - it can't go against the law.

In the US - we don't have any formally organized "sharia councils", in Britain, they do and they seem to primarily serve the huge Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant communities there.

What we have here is more of a loosey-goosie arrangement of individual Imams giving advice (much like most of the non-Catholic Christians seem to have.

ONE religion is under scrutiny because we are currently accelerating the immigration of folks who come from a culture of intolerance, religious domination of govt authority, and reliance on that authority to replace secular law. Recent Pew poll shows that recent Muslim immigrants to America believe by 60% that OUR government should play a much wider role in legislating morality., (even tho --- funny enough -- they tend to vote for the Party that MOCKS folks who want the government to legislate morality) This is the type of expectation that I see being a huge potential problem with allowing "parallel justice systems" to take hold.

One religion is under scrutiny because it's Islam. Did you see the snippet I posted about Christian religious counseling and the prevalence of abuse? I'm quite certain that in terms of sheer numbers of abused and badly counseled women, it exceeds Muslim women and these Christian women are getting very bad advice as well.

So 60% vs 30% of Christians believe government should "protect" morality - and that's recent immigrants. Do you want to bet that number changes by 2nd and 3rd generation to reflect the rest of Americans? I'm not sure this is such a big deal.

There ARE NO parallel JUSTICE systems - not among any of the religious arbritration groups. That's the kind of claim pushed by fear mongerers. There is only one JUSTICE system. What's happening in arbritration and religious counseling is not justice, it's civil matters - mostly divorce and then, ONLY religious divorce. It's very very limited. You can justifiably argue that it is inconsistent, unregulated and open to abuse but that argument applies pretty darn well to all the religious arbritration systems in play.

These folks are NOT just another wave of Irish potato farmers. They have never experience tolerate permissive societies that treat all religions equally. To turn a blind eye WILL repeat the mistakes that our Euro buds have made. So we need to explicitly state the extent to which ALL religions can offer parallel judgement to the public legal code.

That's it. It's not evil. It's not even painful. But any accommodation or ignoring of the problem might be painful..

Ya they are another wave of Irish potato farmers and the fears are exactly the same - my god, what they used to say about the Irish "papists" and the criminal gangs, and the drunken debauchery of the Irish.
Religious freedom and tolerance did not exist in Ireland, nor Russia, nor a number of countries we have immigrants from. We have been successfully absorbing people from "intolerant societies" for some time, INCLUDING Muslims.

Once you start applying different standards to different religions you are truly engaging in a slippery slope in regards to religious freedom. What is going to be the next "alien religion" or "alien culture" that is radically oppposed to ours? We went through that with the Irish, the Italians, the East European Jews, the Russians, Mexicans, Chinese....

What I have bolded - I agree, I have no problem when it applies to all religions - as long as the state doesn't cross the boundaries of religious freedom (which in this case I don't feel it does). That is the way it should be handled.

What exactly do you attribute this American muslim immigration success to then? Say compared to Germany or Belgium or France. Because the FEAR IS --THOSE Euro countries have over accommodated and IGNORED the problem.

It ain't over til it's over. MOST Muslim immigrants arrived here since 2000. The immigration to Britain is FAR OLDER than that. Our immigrants are even newer than theirs. You think it's time NOW to declare there are no potential issues or problems????

 

[Coyote]

Where do you get this 20% Islamic support from American Muslims?

Egyptian and Turkish presidential elections results.

I think we will see similar results for Pakistani elections, once American Pakistani able to vote.
Last time they tried, their system didnt work, as far as I know.

I'm a bit confused - how does that translate into support from American Muslims?

American muslims cast their votes at their consulates in the US.
They are counted and reported separate in the general election results, like a state result.
So we can see exactly how many American muslims casting their votes for the islamists.

US has a much lower % compared to EU countries, but still at around 20%.

Are they dual citizens? Expats?

Not sure if this is meaningful because the 20% would apply only to Turkish citizens in America right? And what percentage of the American Muslim community is of Turkish descent and a Turkish citizen? I think this is very misleading.

Big majority would be dual citizens.

Similar results for Egyptians and Turkish, Pakistani on the way, I think 2018 we shall see those results.

I think Egypt and Turkey are 2 very representative examples. Turkey has 95% literacy rate, and have been the most secular oriented among all middle east countries, so the % you find there, should represent the lower bar. Egypt has 75% literacy rate, had long lasting secular dictatorship. Just like how it was in others.

Population wise, these are again comparable to any other middle east/north african muslim countries. The % of muslims originated from Turkey or Egypt you will find in the US, will be pretty much same for any other mid east/north african country. I should make Pakistan an exception, because of her big population compared to others.

But as I said, I dont expect Pakistan to stay as an exception in their upcoming elections, when we will be able to see the breakdown.

And honestly, 20% islamist rate is a pretty low rate among muslims. Because when you look at those countries, islamists crush the seculars by huge margins, meaning a crushing majority are in fact supporting islamists.

Much less of that huge % made their way to US, but many more made their way to the EU, which also makes sense if you think about it...

The problem I'm seeing with this is I think you are stretching your thesis very very thin. You are taking a subpopulation - basically, dual citizens or expats residing in the US, and of that very small contingent - 20% voted for Islamist parties in Turkey. You're taking a tiny number that might not even be relevant because they might not even be American citizens and using that to indicate a similar trend among American Muslims? The politics of other countries are bound by those countries culture, political structure, freedoms and local issues. This is statistically nuts imo. The Pew Poll of American Muslims doesn't indicate anything like that among American Muslims in general among the American Muslim population.

 

[flacaltenn]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you assume that?

Because they know no other cultural or societal reference than the theocratic hell holes they are fleeing from.
And availing themselves to a legal system that seems to VIOLATE their very beings is scary at the least and UNACCEPTABLE to them at the worst. Not to mention the constant barrage of OFFENSIVE material they see and hear from the moment they set FOOT in this country. ANY accommodation to the ways of the old country will be sought out and used.

 

[Coyote]

I think something else needs to be examined here. There is this implied fear that we are going to be beset by a HORDE of Muslim Immigrants creating closed immigrant enclaves as if somehow, the assimlation has always occured will suddenly fail.

I think this horde is based on Obama's statement of upping the number of refugees we will take to 10,000. 10,000 is nothing. It's also from a group that is vetted for several years before ever setting foot on US soil.

In terms of numbers....look at things proportionately instead of emotionally.

10,000 - the definition of a "small town" is a population of under 20,000. So 10,000 refugees, who will be spread among communities throughout the US. Refugees are given a lot of assistance and support in the resettlement process.

Here is a list of countries from where we have gotten refugees over the past couple of of years:

For 2015 - the entire intake of refugees combined represents something like 0.02% of the US population.

That is not a horde.

 

[Coyote]

The link below is a BBC special on UK Sharia Councils. I want you folks denying that there is any concern about repeating these mistakes in America when LARGE immigration flows inevitably install the same accomodations here.

Listen carefully to the "advice" these BRITISH women are getting from the councils. NEVER does the Imam point out to the 1st couple that there IS NO civil marriage. Or that the woman has ANY RIGHTS guaranteed under BRITISH law.

Or the later case when the women with the Civil marriage is AGAIN not advised of her rights under Civil law.

Or the other case where the Leyton Sharia Counsel attempts to OVERRIDE the child custody ruling determined in a BRITISH court.

It CAN happen here. And it shouldn't. Any immigrants need to be FULLY ADVISE of their legal status and options BEFORE consenting to judgements handed out in Religious proceedings.

Crimes that SHOULD be reported to the police -- SHOULD NEVER be taken as "religious law" cases. It needs to be fixed here BEFORE we get these results already seen in Europe.

I don't want to repeat myself, and I think I went over this in the Regressive thread.

I agree with what you are saying about the problems in British system and I've said this before.

The quality of the advice women get is all over the board. There is no "credentialling" system. In essence any one can be a self proclaimed authority. It IS a problem.

So, here's the question, why is only ONE religion under scrutiny when clearly all seem to have problems with this (I gave examples in an earlier post). If folks really are concerned about women's rights here, should not the the religious arbritration system be examined as a whole?

Secondly, HOW are you going to reconcile this with religious Freedom? Are you going to have the state come down and mandate what they must do WITHIN their faith? Or, only with Islam? Religious counciling overall seems pretty variable in quality but as long as the law isn't violated, how far SHOULD the state intervene?

Third, WE are not Britain, and assuming the same problems will occur is dubious given the differences in our communities.

I'm all for religious freedom and equal protection under the law. But it has to be American law. Not "foreign" law. The very fact that Sharia is codified INTO law in their native lands disturbs me.

To some extent, Halakah is codified into Israeli law too

There are countries that do not have secular law. That's a given - whether it's Sharia or something else. That does not affect us here. Whomever comes here MUST abide by our laws. Anytime there is religious or any other abritration - it can't go against the law.

In the US - we don't have any formally organized "sharia councils", in Britain, they do and they seem to primarily serve the huge Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant communities there.

What we have here is more of a loosey-goosie arrangement of individual Imams giving advice (much like most of the non-Catholic Christians seem to have.

ONE religion is under scrutiny because we are currently accelerating the immigration of folks who come from a culture of intolerance, religious domination of govt authority, and reliance on that authority to replace secular law. Recent Pew poll shows that recent Muslim immigrants to America believe by 60% that OUR government should play a much wider role in legislating morality., (even tho --- funny enough -- they tend to vote for the Party that MOCKS folks who want the government to legislate morality) This is the type of expectation that I see being a huge potential problem with allowing "parallel justice systems" to take hold.

One religion is under scrutiny because it's Islam. Did you see the snippet I posted about Christian religious counseling and the prevalence of abuse? I'm quite certain that in terms of sheer numbers of abused and badly counseled women, it exceeds Muslim women and these Christian women are getting very bad advice as well.

So 60% vs 30% of Christians believe government should "protect" morality - and that's recent immigrants. Do you want to bet that number changes by 2nd and 3rd generation to reflect the rest of Americans? I'm not sure this is such a big deal.

There ARE NO parallel JUSTICE systems - not among any of the religious arbritration groups. That's the kind of claim pushed by fear mongerers. There is only one JUSTICE system. What's happening in arbritration and religious counseling is not justice, it's civil matters - mostly divorce and then, ONLY religious divorce. It's very very limited. You can justifiably argue that it is inconsistent, unregulated and open to abuse but that argument applies pretty darn well to all the religious arbritration systems in play.

These folks are NOT just another wave of Irish potato farmers. They have never experience tolerate permissive societies that treat all religions equally. To turn a blind eye WILL repeat the mistakes that our Euro buds have made. So we need to explicitly state the extent to which ALL religions can offer parallel judgement to the public legal code.

That's it. It's not evil. It's not even painful. But any accommodation or ignoring of the problem might be painful..

Ya they are another wave of Irish potato farmers and the fears are exactly the same - my god, what they used to say about the Irish "papists" and the criminal gangs, and the drunken debauchery of the Irish.
Religious freedom and tolerance did not exist in Ireland, nor Russia, nor a number of countries we have immigrants from. We have been successfully absorbing people from "intolerant societies" for some time, INCLUDING Muslims.

Once you start applying different standards to different religions you are truly engaging in a slippery slope in regards to religious freedom. What is going to be the next "alien religion" or "alien culture" that is radically oppposed to ours? We went through that with the Irish, the Italians, the East European Jews, the Russians, Mexicans, Chinese....

What I have bolded - I agree, I have no problem when it applies to all religions - as long as the state doesn't cross the boundaries of religious freedom (which in this case I don't feel it does). That is the way it should be handled.

What exactly do you attribute this American muslim immigration success to then? Say compared to Germany or Belgium or France. Because the FEAR IS --THOSE Euro countries have over accommodated and IGNORED the problem.

It ain't over til it's over. MOST Muslim immigrants arrived here since 2000. The immigration to Britain is FAR OLDER than that. Our immigrants are even newer than theirs. You think it's time NOW to declare there are no potential issues or problems????

I think there are a lot of reasons for it, and "accommodation" is the least of those reasons - this article has a pretty good explanation: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?

 

[320 Years of History]

you tried to hard to dispute and re-arrange what I've said and missed the salient parts of the discussion.

??? You stated, "We are talking about Religious courts and tribunals. The Catholic church is a valid example. Call me a dunce ---- but I've never heard of the Protestant or Anglican churches (in modern times) continuing to run tribunals for resolutions of legal matters."

I present you with multiple examples of Protestant tribunals, but now, in your mind, I'm the one who missed the salient points of the discussion. Excuse me? If there were one or several salient points that you think I missed, perhaps I would not have done were to have transferred them from your mind to the webpage before clicking "Post Reply."

I am very adept at reading the English word (when it's presented in compliance with something mostly akin to standard English grammar conventions, which your posts mostly are), but I'm lousy at reading minds, although on rare occasion, I do "luck up" and succeed at doing that too.

MOST ALL of those Protestant tribunals focus EXCLUSIVELY on DISCIPLINING errant or disruptive clergy and church members. NOT a "voluntary mediation" process at all.

???

• African Methodist Episcopal Church
  "The church’s ecclesiastical law is outlined in its Book of Discipline. Lay members may be subject to discipline if they disrupt their congregation or behave in ways that, in the words of the church’s chief executive and general superintendent, Bishop Clement Fugh, “exclude them from the grace and glory” of the church. This can include being rowdy during services, being drunk in public or refusing to submit to the authority of church leadership."
• Mormons
  "If a transgression involves a member of the priesthood or serious charges (such as serial adultery or the commission of criminal felonies) against anyone in the church, the case may come before a body known as a Stake High Council. A Mormon stake consists of several wards and is headed by a stake president, who is also a layman. The Stake High Council is made up of 13 male members of the church – the stake president and a dozen other local leaders."
• Episcopal Church of the United States
  "Although the Episcopal Church rarely disciplines lay congregants, cases against laymen occasionally arise. “You can still be excommunicated in the Episcopal Church by bringing scandal upon the church – by publishing untrue things about the church or its members or repeatedly disrupting church services,” Hutchinson says. When a lay Episcopalian is accused of these kinds of offenses, it is up to his or her priest to determine whether excommunication is warranted. But excommunications can be appealed to the local bishop.
  
  ...There also are lighter forms of discipline. For example, a congregant might lose certain privileges but still retain church membership. “Sometimes people are simply prevented from coming to the communion rail,” says David Beers chancellor to the church’s presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori."
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
  "The ECLA also has rules for congregations to follow when disciplining church members for repeatedly being disruptive or other public misconduct. “Before any formal actions are taken, the pastor and others take the person aside and warn him to stop,” says Tuttle. If the person does not stop the behavior, the congregation’s governing body, the Congregation Council (a body elected by the congregation’s members), can hold a hearing and impose disciplinary measures by a two-thirds vote of the council’s members. This decision can be appealed to the local synod and no further. Discipline can range from an admonition or warning to suspension of membership to expulsion from that congregation."
• Presbyterian Church, USA
  "PCUSA courts administer two types of cases: disciplinary and remedial. Disciplinary cases involve trying and correcting individual Presbyterians (usually ministers, elders or deacons) who are accused of behavior that violates Christian scripture or the church’s constitution."
  
  ...“ 'The purpose [of church discipline] is not retribution [or] to get even. The purpose is to honor God by preserving the purity of the church,' says the Rev. Joyce Lieberman, manager for polity guidance and training in the PCUSA’s Office of Constitutional Services in Louisville, Ky."

All that is from the Pew Research article. What we observe is merely that the nature and scope of punishment exacted differs from that exacted (or able to be enacted) by Sharia councils (?) in Islamically run legal systems/countries. That the various religious organizations conduct tribunals aimed at judging and punishing/disciplining their members is present just as it is in Islam.

Looking back at your remarks, I believe you noted that you were unaware of the mere existence of Protestant tribunals aimed at dealing with legal matters. One must infer from your comments in post #798 that public drunkenness, public misconduct, libel, serial adultery, and criminal felonies don't strike you as violations of law secular and church law, in other words, as "legal matters." (see red text in above) That's even before considering what be the legal context of the more vague causes the listed churches above have for holding tribunals and passing judgment on the accused persons.

 

[Coyote]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you assume that?

Because they know no other cultural or societal reference than the theocratic hell holes they are fleeing from.
And availing themselves to a legal system that seems to VIOLATE their very beings is scary at the least and UNACCEPTABLE to them at the worst. Not to mention the constant barrage of OFFENSIVE material they see and hear from the moment they set FOOT in this country. ANY accommodation to the ways of the old country will be sought out and used.

Don't you think we're assuming a lot here? We seem to think they are all a mass of uneducated superstitious peasants incapable of moving beyond that. First off - there is a self-selection at work among those who CHOOSE to immigrate. It's no easy undertaking, it's expensive, risky, challanging. You're already looking at a group that shows itself to be flexible and forward thinking to some degree. In addition, the world is not so isolated anymore - media, social media, internet etc brings the world into every living room and puts people in contact with each other in ways never before imagined (not always good) - people are more likely to know what is going on around the world, other political systems, other social systems. I think that can have an effect.

Second, it's quite possible that the older generation will seek what is familiar to their old country. Are you going to flat out deny it? I had to write a research paper once, on immigration at the turn of the century. The largest group at the time was East European Jews, and yes, they lived in insular communities at first, they had their own Yiddish language newspapers, store signs, stores with old country merchandise and foods, and their rabbi's. I doubt they were much different than the Irish Catholics in that regard. But the thing is - they still assimilated. They still adapted to a very different culture - maybe not always the first generation, but the second. In the meantime do we have the right to deny them - or any immigrant group, access to community and religious services that they feel they need as long as the law isn't violated?

 

[320 Years of History]

Because they know no other cultural or societal reference than the theocratic hell holes they are fleeing from.

That makes perfect sense because, of course, those folks have no radio, television or Internet access, books and papers we read in the U.S are not ever translated into a language they understand, they've never known or met anyone who's emigrated from their home country to a place like Western Europe or the U.S. Moreover, those who do want to immigrate to the U.S. only have stated a preference for the U.S. as their destination because they blindfolded threw darts at a wall map, and the U.S. is what their dart hit. Lastly, of course, they lack the intellectual acumen to conceive that there may be a modality of social existence that differs from theirs. In other words, they are the modern day equivalent of the subjects in Plato's cave who saw only shadows on a wall from the day they were born until the day they decided they want to emigrate.

Give me a break!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm being completely serious because this now is really no laughing matter or one that deserves insults in any way. I'm not trying to be rude, condescending, castigatory, excoriative, pejorative, or anything resembling those things. I'm absolutely and truly incredulous that anyone can conjure the nature of the premises, inferences and conclusions that you have throughout this discussion with me and Coyote.

 

[320 Years of History]

Some folks here may find this paper highly informative regarding why this discussion thread has progressed as it has.

Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse

 

[Syriusly]

[
All that has to happen here is for AMERICAN Muslim clergy to certify that their counseling and mediation will not attempt to handle Criminal or serious Civil cases. And that they will take local Civil Law into account in all their "verdicts". AND ideally that they will report or ENCOURAGE the reporting of such instances of Civil crimes committed that are REVEALED thru these mediations to authorities.

Or what?

I understand what you want- and we have provided quotes to you from American Muslim clergy that have clearly stated that their rulings are not handling Criminal matters and are none binding- and that all of their rulings are subject to Federal, State and local laws.

But why would they take local Civil law into account in their 'verdicts'? The Catholic Church doesn't care whether a couple can divorce according to Civil Law- they still will not allow that couple to divorce according to the Catholic Church.

And reporting sounds good- but remember- Catholic priests are forbidden to reveal what is told to them in confession- and cannot by law be compelled to.

Why again do you seem to think that Muslims should be held to a different standard than every other religious group?

Why SHOULD they take Civil Law into account in their verdicts? .

You ignored my example.

The Catholic Church does not take Civil Law into account when deciding whether a couple can have a religious annulment of their marriage.

Why do you insist that a different standard be used when it comes to Muslims?

And ............ Again. I have restricted my comments about Sharia law to RECENT IMMIGRANTS (or 1st generation) in America. Those who LIKELY are unfamiliar with the LEGAL options available in Western secular societies. These folks come from tyrannical hellholes where all they have ever experienced is the Islamic way of life and it's perfusion into the law of their lands.

I SUPPOSE --- in terms of Catholics -- I would be concerned about a wave of Catholic immigration from these hell holes ----- IF there was any. But there is not. The Yazidis are Christian but not Catholic and could be in the same boat if THEIR NEW community in Peoria was DOMINATED by "Yazidi religious councils" -- but that's not a reality.

I have no concern for Westernized people making their OWN DEALS with their "religious authority". Whether it be Catholic or Jewish. But moreso Catholic because the large majority of Jews are NOT under the thumb of ORTHODOX religious authority.

But once again- why do you insist on a different standard to be used when it comes to Muslim recent immigrants?

Immigrants should be taught about their legal protections- including women who come to the United States. You keep insisting that we must somehow offer greater protection to Muslims immigrant women than we offer to any other immigrant women

FYI- Yazidi's are not Christians but monotheists- I have no idea whether they have religious councils or not, but as they come from the Middle East, their social structures are likely to be similar- oh wait

The Yazidis are strictly endogamous; members of the three Yazidi castes, the murids, sheikhs and pirs, marry only within their group, marriage outside the caste is considered a sin punishable by death to restore lost honour.[28]

Yep- similar

 

[Syriusly]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you think that 'virtually all of the new immigrants' will be 'that conservative'?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
ONE religion is under scrutiny because we are currently accelerating the immigration of folks who come from a culture of intolerance, religious domination of govt authority, and reliance on that authority to replace secular law. .

Are we?

I have heard discussions of increasing the number of refugees from the Middle East- but refugees are rather a drop in the bucket in our overall immigration numbers.

So where is this 'accelerating the immigration'?

 

[Mudda]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you assume that?

Because they know no other cultural or societal reference than the theocratic hell holes they are fleeing from.
And availing themselves to a legal system that seems to VIOLATE their very beings is scary at the least and UNACCEPTABLE to them at the worst. Not to mention the constant barrage of OFFENSIVE material they see and hear from the moment they set FOOT in this country. ANY accommodation to the ways of the old country will be sought out and used.

Don't you think we're assuming a lot here? We seem to think they are all a mass of uneducated superstitious peasants incapable of moving beyond that. First off - there is a self-selection at work among those who CHOOSE to immigrate. It's no easy undertaking, it's expensive, risky, challanging. You're already looking at a group that shows itself to be flexible and forward thinking to some degree. In addition, the world is not so isolated anymore - media, social media, internet etc brings the world into every living room and puts people in contact with each other in ways never before imagined (not always good) - people are more likely to know what is going on around the world, other political systems, other social systems. I think that can have an effect.

Second, it's quite possible that the older generation will seek what is familiar to their old country. Are you going to flat out deny it? I had to write a research paper once, on immigration at the turn of the century. The largest group at the time was East European Jews, and yes, they lived in insular communities at first, they had their own Yiddish language newspapers, store signs, stores with old country merchandise and foods, and their rabbi's. I doubt they were much different than the Irish Catholics in that regard. But the thing is - they still assimilated. They still adapted to a very different culture - maybe not always the first generation, but the second. In the meantime do we have the right to deny them - or any immigrant group, access to community and religious services that they feel they need as long as the law isn't violated?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. the 9/11 hijackers all VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO IMMIGRATE to the US. They were SELF-SELECTED by OSAMA BIN LADEN.

 

[Mudda]

[Q
ONE religion is under scrutiny because we are currently accelerating the immigration of folks who come from a culture of intolerance, religious domination of govt authority, and reliance on that authority to replace secular law. .

Are we?

I have heard discussions of increasing the number of refugees from the Middle East- but refugees are rather a drop in the bucket in our overall immigration numbers.

So where is this 'accelerating the immigration'?

Total American Muslim population share projected to grow

 

[Mudda]

I looked it up.. Fraction of ORTHODOX Jews in America is about 10%. That's why quoting Talmudic law and talking about Bet Din is virtually irrelevant for comparisons in THIS country.. Fraction of Catholics subject to "orthodox religious law" I assume is greater than 90%.. So leave us out of the national discussion please.

Now in Israel ---- those numbers reverse and the minority of Jews are secular or Reform or Conservative. The vast MAJORITY is Orthodox..

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you think that 'virtually all of the new immigrants' will be 'that conservative'?

The radicals tend to silence to others. Moderate Muslims are a buncha docile fraidy cats, lest they get seen as a bad Muslim in the community. So they tacitly approve of radical actions by keeping silent.
Or maybe they're all just a bunch of liars and all support deadly tactics.
Either way, they're a dangerous bunch of evildoers.

 

[irosie91]

And in US..what is the fraction of Muslims are conservative enough to seek religious arbritration? When it comes to abuse should not ALL women matter?

What concerns me is that virtually ALL of the NEW immigrants will be "that conservative" and carrying expectations of justice and authority that do not match their new homelands.

Why do you assume that?

Because they know no other cultural or societal reference than the theocratic hell holes they are fleeing from.
And availing themselves to a legal system that seems to VIOLATE their very beings is scary at the least and UNACCEPTABLE to them at the worst. Not to mention the constant barrage of OFFENSIVE material they see and hear from the moment they set FOOT in this country. ANY accommodation to the ways of the old country will be sought out and used.

Don't you think we're assuming a lot here? We seem to think they are all a mass of uneducated superstitious peasants incapable of moving beyond that. First off - there is a self-selection at work among those who CHOOSE to immigrate. It's no easy undertaking, it's expensive, risky, challanging. You're already looking at a group that shows itself to be flexible and forward thinking to some degree. In addition, the world is not so isolated anymore - media, social media, internet etc brings the world into every living room and puts people in contact with each other in ways never before imagined (not always good) - people are more likely to know what is going on around the world, other political systems, other social systems. I think that can have an effect.

Second, it's quite possible that the older generation will seek what is familiar to their old country. Are you going to flat out deny it? I had to write a research paper once, on immigration at the turn of the century. The largest group at the time was East European Jews, and yes, they lived in insular communities at first, they had their own Yiddish language newspapers, store signs, stores with old country merchandise and foods, and their rabbi's. I doubt they were much different than the Irish Catholics in that regard. But the thing is - they still assimilated. They still adapted to a very different culture - maybe not always the first generation, but the second. In the meantime do we have the right to deny them - or any immigrant group, access to community and religious services that they feel they need as long as the law isn't violated?

Please take your blinders off and/or get your head out of the sand. the 9/11 hijackers all VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO IMMIGRATE to the US. They were SELF-SELECTED by OSAMA BIN LADEN.

were they all immigrants? they had green cards? (???) that's news to me!!!
However ---there is no denying that lots of our Islamic terrorists-----have been
either citizens or legal green card holding immigrants------the status is no
guarantee (some have been converts)